q402_stake

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses WRITE/MOVES FUNDS, gasless execution, server-managed key path, confirmation requirement, sandbox default, and retry safety with dedup, all beyond what structured annotations would provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with headers for confirmation, sandbox, and retry safety. Every sentence provides necessary operational detail, making the length justified and front-loaded with the WRITE-MOVES FUNDS warning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, it covers operational workflow (preview/confirm, sandbox flag, retry safety) and references response status ('uncertain'). It doesn't fully describe the response shape, but the critical usage scenarios are all addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%; all five parameters have descriptions that already explain 'max', tier APR, consentToken flow, etc. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States clearly it 'Stakes the Agent Wallet's Q (QuackAI) token into QuackAiStake on BNB Chain, gaslessly.' Verb+resource+chain makes it distinct from siblings like q402_unstake and q402_pay.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit workflow: call first without confirm to preview, then re-call with confirm:true + consentToken; sandbox default and retry safety are also covered. It references q402_pay as a similar pattern but doesn't explicitly name alternatives for staking.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.